Fluharty v. Fluharty
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8902, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244, 59 Cal. App. 4th 484 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A family relationship between a parent and an emancipated adult child, by itself, is not a sufficient basis for imposing a legal duty of care on the parent to refrain from negligent or self-destructive conduct that causes the child emotional distress.
Facts:
- On July 14, 1992, the defendant murdered his wife, the plaintiff's mother.
- The defendant then telephoned the plaintiff and stated, 'I just blew your mother’s head off and I am going to blow my head off.'
- The plaintiff and his wife immediately drove to the defendant's home.
- Upon arrival, the plaintiff saw his mother's body in a car and saw the defendant holding a shotgun to his own chin, threatening to kill himself.
- The plaintiff pleaded with the defendant not to shoot himself and eventually lunged for the weapon.
- During the ensuing struggle for the shotgun, the weapon discharged, causing a very slight injury to the plaintiff's wife.
- The plaintiff subdued the defendant, who was subsequently convicted of murder.
- As a result of the incident, the plaintiff alleged he developed posttraumatic stress disorder.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff and his siblings settled a wrongful death claim against the defendant for their mother's death.
- Plaintiff and his wife initiated a civil action against the defendant in trial court.
- The trial court granted defendant's motions to strike plaintiff's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress related to observing his mother's corpse and his father's attempted suicide.
- Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging assault and battery, as well as NIED under 'bystander' and 'direct victim' theories.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant, finding no assault or battery and that defendant's conduct was not sufficiently 'outrageous' to be actionable.
- Plaintiff, the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a parent owe a legal duty of care to their adult child to refrain from conduct, such as attempting suicide after committing murder, that could cause the child severe emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
No, a parent does not owe a legal duty of care to their adult child to refrain from conduct that could cause emotional distress under these circumstances. To establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a 'direct victim,' the plaintiff must show the defendant breached a duty of care. The existence of a duty is a question of law based on public policy. While the harm to the plaintiff was foreseeable, foreseeability alone is insufficient to create a duty. Policy considerations weigh against imposing such a duty in this familial context because emotional pain is an inherent part of family life, and injecting tort liability for self-destructive acts could destroy close family relationships. The law does not impose a general duty on parents to avoid conduct that distresses their adult children, and creating one here would be inconsistent with the fact that suicide itself carries no criminal sanction.
Dissenting - Raye, J.
Yes, a parent does owe such a duty of care to their child. The majority incorrectly dismisses the claim based on a fear of interfering with family dynamics. The 'direct victim' theory for emotional distress allows recovery when a duty arising from a preexisting relationship is breached, and the parent-child relationship is a quintessential example of such a relationship. The defendant's conduct—murder and attempted suicide—is far beyond the normal 'heartache and emotional pain' of family life. Public policy should not prevent recovery for serious emotional harm caused by such horrific familial violence, and the question of whether the defendant's conduct actually caused the plaintiff's harm should be a question of fact for a jury, not a question of duty for the court.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the scope of 'direct victim' liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) within the family context. The court's holding establishes that a family relationship alone, particularly between a parent and an emancipated adult child, does not automatically create a special duty of care to avoid causing emotional distress through self-destructive acts. By prioritizing policy concerns—such as avoiding judicial interference in family life and preventing limitless liability—over the foreseeability of harm, the decision sets a high bar for future NIED claims between family members. This precedent requires plaintiffs in similar situations to establish a duty based on factors beyond the mere existence of the familial relationship.
